Skip to content

Greensboro to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Ban

February 4, 2012

From Amanda Lehmert at the N&R:

The Greensboro City Council on Tuesday will consider a resolution to oppose a constitutional amendment to ensure that the state recognizes marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

The new city council got off to a rocky start with the return of business as usual, by decreasing transparency and making plans to spend money on public works, but this kind of thing reaffirms the reasons we voted them in. Despite the Christian fundamentalists’ objection to same-sex marriage, what we are really fighting for is the protection of civil unions and domestic partnerships, as much on behalf of those involved as their children. Republicans in the NC Legislature have over-reached with the wording of the referendum to amend the Constitution, and for that reason, the effort is likely to fail.

I congratulate city council for their decision and look forward to passage of the resolution on Tuesday. Greensboro has a long tradition of tolerance toward all her citizens and this action merely reaffirms that thinking.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. Roch101 permalink
    February 4, 2012 12:05 pm

    “to ensure that the state recognizes marriage as the union between one man and one woman.”

    The recognition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman is already ensured. Amanda misses the crux of the matter by a mile.

  2. collards permalink
    February 4, 2012 6:27 pm

    Marriage is a religious institution that creates the basis of a civil union, which the State recognizes. What the State does recognize is other types of civil unions, which violates the equal protection clause.

    Indeed?

    • collards permalink
      February 4, 2012 6:28 pm

      does NOT recognize…….

  3. February 4, 2012 6:42 pm

    The current statute only supports marriage between a man and a woman. It says nothing about civil unions/domestic partnerships. Roch’s point is that Lehmert mistakenly reported that the constitutional amendment would ensure marriage occurs between a man and a woman. The existing statute already does that.

  4. collards permalink
    February 4, 2012 8:40 pm

    So, a large segment of our population is denied the right to enter into and receive the benefits of a union between two consenting adults?

    • February 4, 2012 10:38 pm

      The existing statute says nothing about civil unions/domestic partnerships. The referendum to amend the constitution seeks to ban them.

      • Roch101 permalink
        February 5, 2012 10:47 am

        Thanks, Fec. Your explanations are precisely correct.

  5. Axelskater permalink
    February 6, 2012 12:18 am

    I believe the language did overreach, due to pressure from various 3rd parties. Not what the Republican legislature should be focused on and if you check back, it was not even on their (2010) 10 point plan or original first hundred days agenda for the 2010 campaign season. I read them both. This issue was not on either. I believe the domestic partnership ban issue is problematic but I guess we’ll see what happens. I certainly will not vote for it.

  6. Janet Wright permalink
    February 6, 2012 10:21 am

    http://www.news-record.com/blog/55399/entry/137163

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 88 other followers

%d bloggers like this: